I just hope it doesn’t turn into the swift-boating against Kerry gambit of 2020. Trump Republicans appear to have a very loose relationship with truth, facts, and basic morality, to an extent that makes the anti-Kerry swift-boaters of 2004 look like amateurs. The fact that Trump is a serial sexual assaulter will be irrelevant. The fact that Reade has dozens of mutually contradictory versions of her story will also be irrelevant. The most damaging one will be held up as the gospel truth by Fox News and the Republican machine. I even foresee creative bumper stickers, casting Biden in the role of sexual predator, and Trump as innocent as a new-born babe. Everything is possible in the post-factual Orwellian world of “alternative facts”.
It’s “emails” 2020.
More “Let’s make sure we hear from everyone, no matter how ridiculous we already know they are” reporting from news outlets that should know better.
She’s already imposed a precondition that’s impossible to meet, which is that Joe Biden also submit to a polygraph.
He can’t. There is no way on earth that he can submit himself to a polygraph.
For one thing, they’re crap. They’re about as reliable as a ouija board. Or dunking. And Biden can’t put himself in a situation where the results are unpredictable and quite possibly unrelated to whether or not he’s telling the truth.
For another, if he does take the test, and is shown to be telling the truth, then he can never refuse a polygraph again, or the response was “hey, you must have something to hide, because you’ve taken the test before, when you knew you didn’t have anything to hide! Gotcha!”
Ms. Reade has no intention of ever taking a polygraph.
I bet Nixon vetted Spiro Agnew.
Turned out Agnew was a crook through and through.
But hey…he was vetted! :rolleyes:
I am NOT saying Biden is guilty. I am not saying the team that vetted Biden missed a thing.
I am only suggesting that saying “vetted” is not some magical inoculation against finding out a candidate did something wrong.
Trump himself has not gone after it. In fact some reporting says he privately doubts it.
The Trump campaign instead have announced big #BeijingBiden spending on ads and digital to make Biden out for a pawn of CCP and corrupt on Hunter Biden’s business work.
Nixon was a crook, too. “I am not a crook” has gone down in history as perhaps the most famous and egregious lie ever told in American politics. Look at the Trump cabinet. See how like attracts like?
Obama was not a crook. And from what I have heard from interviews of many members of his administration during and after his tenure, their qualifications and competence were generally stellar, so I assume that Biden was vetted quite competently.
You are right.
Nixon being a crook then does not mean he is keen to hire a crook who might be found out (which Agnew was). Also, remember, Watergate happened later. Was Nixon a crook when elected and chose Agnew? (I really do not know except a suspicion you never get to that point to run for president without a few skeletons in the closet.)
I dunno…maybe Nixon knew all along that Agnew was a crook and chose him anyway. I am not well read on all of that. I do know it was a big deal that both the president and vice president were about to go down at the same time which freaked a lot of people out.
So, did Nixon vette Agnew, find out he was deeply crooked and hire him anyway or did Nixon miss it?
I’ve seen several of Biden’s lackeys on several different networks and they all have their talking points:
Lackey: Joe Biden believes that Ms. Raede has every right to say what she said, however, he has forcefully and vehemently denied it.
Reporter: Yes, however, didn’t your side say that women should be believed when it came to Bretty Kavanaugh?
Lackey: We are not here to talk about Kavanaugh. Joe Biden is not running against Brett Kavanaugh, he is running against Donald Trump who has more than 20 credible sexual assault allegations against him.
This strategy seems odd to me. First, the repetition of the “she has a right to say it.” As mentioned in the other thread, if it is false, she has absolutely no such right. Women who are sexually assaulted clearly have a right to name their accuser, but if Joe knows it is false, that line is odd in the extreme.
Second, the dismissal of Kavanaugh as “Joe isn’t running against him” can be easily exploited. When pressed, most people will want an answer to that and that hand waiving may last on news shows, but not when Biden is pressed on it personally.
Finally, the comparison to Trump is odd. Is Biden saying that he wins 20-1? Even if you think I did it, I’m not as bad as this guy? And further, if we believe the allegations against Trump, shouldn’t we use that standard to believe the allegations against Biden?
I’m not here to rehash the old arguments, but it seems like his talking points are incredibly weak. And once again, I don’t believe these allegations against him.
It’s too bad Trump has essentially legalized rape for political purposes.
With Trump and his two dozen accusations and with Kavanaugh (who had a very credible accuser and who tried to pass off an obvious skirt-chasing journal as a record of his farts), the narrative was that it couldn’t possibly be true because these accusations simply had to be political in nature. You cannot be a rape victim if you are accusing someone who is running for office; their campaign means any such claims are automatically assumed to be dirty tricks of the opposition. All accusations are false unless they are about the opposing party, in which case all accusations need to be examined over and over again like Benghazi. Accusers are first and foremost thought of as opportunists and partisans who will make up terrible stories because they were paid to or because (insert conspiracy theory here). Moral of the story: if you are a woman who is sexually harassed or assaulted, your best bet is to report it early and often, tell everyone and if at all possible, get something recorded. You will still be called a liar and a whore and your video evidence will be dismissed as a deep fake but that is all you can do because your word will never be enough.
As regards Tara Reade, by all means investigate. Investigate her story at least as thoroughly as Kavanaugh was investigated, that’s only fair. But I do find it to be a strange narrative, the idea that Joe Biden would just randomly reach up her skirt in the middle of a hallway during working hours. Grabbing women by the pussy is Trump’s move and that one is on tape.
There’s a theory that Nixon chose Agnew as impeachment insurance. Nixon knew he was going to break some laws. But he figured people who hesitate to remove him from office, if it meant Spiro Agnew became President.
(And as a nitpick, it’s vet in this context.)
You’re wrong. You aren’t even pretending to take into account the difference in the VP selection process in 1968 and 2008.
Obama didn’t miss a thing, they couldn’t have known that Tara Reade would show up out of nowhere and make incorrect statements in 2020.
Uh huh. You’re comparing Nixon to Obama. Not exactly the most persuasive of arguments.
And as with the Kerry situation, it is not enough to simply defend, he has to attack.
I’ll repeat that.
It is not enough to defend. He needs to ATTACK.
With each passing day I start to doubt that Joe Biden is actually Irish.
Mr McCain, born in Panama, expert at crashing jets, had a pretty sleazy history. But as Dr McCoy would say, “He’s DEAD, Dale!” And irrelevant now, so back to topic.
Donny has bragged of sexual assaults and desiring to fuck his underage daughter. He has molested underage beauty contestants and publicly cheated on wives, often with hookers and strippers. Jerry Brown scored classier without paying or cheating. And Donny steals tips from his resort wait staff. That’s all documented or recorded. A real role model for GOP guys, right?
Ms Reade has apparently changed her story several times which doesn’t help her credibility. I haven’t followed the details so I’ll render no judgement. But [many characterizations deleted] Donny will not get my vote.
No, you’re wrong. But I’ll give you a chance.
Please enlighten us how Nixon was saddled with Agnew against his wishes.
Ah fuck it…
I am comparing two presidents who chose their running mates.
It’s not rocket science.
You can’t make this shit up.
The lawyers helping Reade? One is a Trump supporter donating $55,000 in 2016
Another. A former writer and editor for Sputnik
Maybe you didn’t read your own cite. The running mate in 1968 was chosen with as much thought as what you’d have for dinner.
By 2008, running mate selection was a big deal. Obviously 72 blew up in McGovern’s face. Even in 84, I’m sure Mondale got sick of Ferraro financial scandals and I’m sure he wished he’d picked someone else.
Uh huh. Your opinion is even more irrelevant to me now, but keep on flailing.
Democrats don’t do that. They roll over and play dead. Or, they “go high”… look how well that worked out.